tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19923729.post2187866605284460156..comments2023-09-05T08:34:20.322-04:00Comments on susan the bruce: Government Small Enough to fit in Women's UnderpantsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19923729.post-73089261692207043492008-12-18T21:11:00.000-05:002008-12-18T21:11:00.000-05:00In response to Anonymous @ 1:01 PM:First, the arme...In response to Anonymous @ 1:01 PM:<BR/><BR/>First, the armed forces actually do have regs to prevent torture; soldiers can refuse to follow an order they reasonably believe to be unlawful.<BR/><BR/>Second, you're conflating professional medical ethics with personal morals. A doctor, pharmacist etc. who refrains from allowing his personal morals to reflect upon his work still has to behave ethically. And, in fact, professional ethics demand that when personal morals and professional ethics conflict, the professional ethics win out.<BR/><BR/>The medical profession is ethically obliged to act in the interests of the patient's well-being, but at the same time, we are talking about the patient's well-being in a medical context only. It is emphatically not the doctor or pharmacist's place to be concerned with the patient's spiritual well-being, and as a result, the doctor or pharmacist's personal morals cannot be allowed to trump the ethical principle of patient autonomy. A doctor or pharmacist can legitimately refuse to provide a service only because he believes it would be contrary to the interests of the patient's <I>medical</I> well-being to do so.<BR/><BR/>The ethical principle of patient autonomy, incidentally, is one major point that sets health care apart from the other examples you've mentioned. There is also the issue that, as patients, if we require a particular medication, and that medication is a controlled substance, we are legally required to seek the services of someone granted the authority by the government to prescribe and dispense it. As any first-year political science student will tell you, authority and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. When you have the exclusive authority to carry out a certain task, you have a concomitant responsibility to do it when it needs doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19923729.post-21696670380963207642008-12-05T21:28:00.000-05:002008-12-05T21:28:00.000-05:00Thank you, Dissed Belief - I'm probably not finish...Thank you, Dissed Belief - I'm probably not finished playing around with how the blog looks, but this at least provides more space. <BR/><BR/>I've had a lot of positive response from women on this particular editorial.susanthehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960705109051557790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19923729.post-74265156181088758572008-12-05T13:01:00.000-05:002008-12-05T13:01:00.000-05:00While I find it sad we don't allow right of consci...While I find it sad we don't allow right of conscience in the military so that things like torture don't occur, I have to say I disagree with you entirely. <BR/>If our nation is truly free, then people of all vocations must be free to follow their moral conscience. If that moral conscience conflicts with their line of work, perhaps they should find another line of work, but to suggest that it's wrong for a doctor object to a "medical procedure" on a moral basis is completely anti-intellectual. <BR/>Other vocations not only is such moral fiber considered good, but it's a benefit. If a structural engineer refuses to work on a project on moral grounds, whatever they may be I bet you would be far less critical of his scruples. Why is the human body any different? Or a priest/pastor refusing to marry a couple for what he considers moral reasons? <BR/><BR/>I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a doctor of the highest moral standard who at least questioned the implications for every procedure than one who was completely amoral as you are suggesting these pharmacists and doctors should be. If my physician had the kind of scruples that you find appealing, I would fire him outright and suggest he gain a conscience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19923729.post-24959607987640939622008-12-05T11:41:00.000-05:002008-12-05T11:41:00.000-05:00This week on NPR I listened to Mike Huckabee's int...This week on NPR I listened to Mike Huckabee's interview with Dianne R. I find it so interesting how fundamentalist Christians boast their way through life, holier than thou. Does Huckabee hunt I wonder? The "discussions" I've had with individuals such as these always end up with them defending their right to kill (Iraq, and the murdered food they choose eat). When I raise the issue of voiceless animals, the arguments from these individuals are lame, such as "God gave us all the animals to kill and eat". What I just love about our right wing fundamentalist sector, is that they justify any belief they have by using God. Sounds radical Islamic to me, someone help me out and tell me what the difference is. You can't because there isn't any. Both sides use violence and the suppression and oppression of women to further their cause. Ye olde Chastity Belt is returning. Guess what? You are NOT pro-life if you choose to consume murdered animals. I can quote as many lines from scripture as you can on this subject to back it up. Another great column Susan and love the new look of your blog. Keep up the great writing and research you do. Blessings and good things to you for the hols.DissedBeliefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18055548880061195929noreply@blogger.com